(1) Operators reach a monopoly agreement; (2) Operators abuse their dominant market position;
(3) Concentration of operators that has or may have the effect of eliminating or restricting competition.
The specific provisions are in Chapter 2345 of the Anti-Monopoly Law.
Chapter 2 Monopoly Agreements
Article 13 prohibits competing operators from entering into the following monopoly agreements:
(1) Fixing or changing commodity prices ;
(2) Restrict the production quantity or sales quantity of goods;
(3) Segment the sales market or raw material procurement market;
(4) Restrict purchases New technologies, new equipment or restrictions on the development of new technologies and new products;
(5) Joint boycott of transactions;
(6) Other monopoly agreements identified by the Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency of the State Council.
The term "monopoly agreement" as used in this Law refers to agreements, decisions or other concerted behaviors that eliminate or restrict competition.
Article 14 prohibits operators from entering into the following monopoly agreements with counterparties:
(1) Fixing the price of reselling goods to a third party;
(2) Limiting the minimum price for reselling goods to third parties;
(3) Other monopoly agreements identified by the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency of the State Council.
Article 15 If the operator can prove that the agreement reached falls under one of the following circumstances, the provisions of Articles 13 and 14 of this Law shall not apply:
( 1) To improve technology and research and develop new products;
(2) To improve product quality, reduce costs and increase efficiency, unify product specifications and standards or implement specialized division of labor;
(3) In order to improve the operating efficiency of small and medium-sized operators and enhance the competitiveness of small and medium-sized operators;
(4) In order to realize social public interests such as energy conservation, environmental protection, disaster relief and assistance;
(5) To alleviate the serious decline in sales or obvious overproduction due to the economic downturn;
(6) To protect legitimate interests in foreign trade and foreign economic cooperation ;
(7) Other circumstances prescribed by law and the State Council.
If the provisions of Articles 13 and 14 of this Law do not apply under the circumstances of Items 1 to 5 of the preceding paragraph, the operator shall also prove that the agreement reached will not seriously restrict the relevant market. competition and enabling consumers to share in the resulting benefits.
Article 16: Industry associations shall not organize operators in the industry to engage in monopolistic behaviors prohibited by this Chapter.
Chapter 3 Abuse of Dominant Market Position
Article 17 prohibits operators with a dominant market position from engaging in the following behaviors that abuse a dominant market position:
( 1) Selling goods at an unfairly high price or purchasing goods at an unfairly low price;
(2) Selling goods at a price lower than cost without justifiable reasons;
( 3) Refusing to trade with the counterparty without justifiable reasons;
(4) Restricting the counterparty to the transaction to only trade with it or with its designated operator without justifiable reasons;
p>
(5) Tying goods without justifiable reasons, or attaching other unreasonable trading conditions to transactions;
(6) Treating counterparties with the same conditions in transactions without justifiable reasons Implement differential treatment in terms of price and other transaction conditions;
(7) Other abuses of market dominance determined by the Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency of the State Council.
The term “market dominance” as used in this Law refers to a market position in which an operator is able to control the price, quantity or other trading conditions of goods in the relevant market, or is able to hinder or affect the ability of other operators to enter the relevant market. .
Article 18 To determine that an operator has a dominant market position, the following factors shall be based on:
(1) The market share of the operator in the relevant market, and the competition status of the relevant market ;
(2) The operator’s ability to control the sales market or raw material procurement market;
(3) The operator’s financial and technical conditions;
(4) The degree of dependence of other operators on the operator for transactions;
(5) The difficulty for other operators to enter the relevant market;
(6) And identification Other factors related to the operator's market dominance.
Article 19 If one of the following circumstances occurs, an operator may be presumed to have a dominant market position:
(1) An operator’s market share in the relevant market reaches half 1;
(2) The total market share of two operators in the relevant market reaches two-thirds;
(3) The market share of three operators in the relevant market The total share reached three-quarters.
Under the circumstances specified in Items 2 and 3 of the preceding paragraph, if the market share of any operator is less than one-tenth, it shall not be presumed that the operator has a dominant market position.
If an operator that is presumed to have a dominant market position has evidence proving that it does not have a dominant market position, it shall not be deemed to have a dominant market position.
Chapter 4 Concentration of Business Operators
Article 20 Concentration of Business Operators refers to the following situations:
(1) Merger of Business Operators;
(2) Operators obtain control over other operators by acquiring equity or assets;
(3) Operators obtain control over other operators through contracts or other means or are able to exert decisive influence on other operators.
Article 21 If the concentration of business operators reaches the reporting standards stipulated by the State Council, the business operators shall report to the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency of the State Council in advance. If the concentration is not reported, the concentration shall not be implemented.
Article 22 If the concentration of undertakings falls under any of the following circumstances, it is not necessary to report to the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency of the State Council:
(1) One undertaking participating in the concentration owns other More than 50% of the shares or assets with voting rights of each operator;
(2) More than 50% of the shares or assets with voting rights of each operator participating in the concentration are transferred to the same company Owned by operators not participating in the concentration.
Article 28 If the concentration of business operators has or may have the effect of eliminating or restricting competition, the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency of the State Council shall make a decision to prohibit the concentration of business operators. However, if the business operators can prove that the beneficial impact of the concentration on competition is significantly greater than the adverse impact, or it is in the interests of the public, the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency of the State Council may make a decision not to prohibit the concentration of business operators.
Article 29: For concentrations of business operators that are not prohibited, the Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement Agency of the State Council may decide to attach restrictive conditions that reduce the adverse impact of concentration on competition.
Article 30 The anti-monopoly law enforcement agency of the State Council shall promptly announce to the public the decision to prohibit the concentration of undertakings or to impose restrictive conditions on the concentration of undertakings.
Article 31 If foreign capital merges and acquires domestic enterprises or participates in concentration of undertakings in other ways, which involves national security, in addition to conducting concentration review in accordance with the provisions of this Law, it shall also conduct an examination in accordance with relevant national regulations National security review.
Chapter 5 Abuse of Administrative Power to Eliminate or Restrict Competition
Article 32 Administrative agencies and organizations authorized by laws and regulations to manage public affairs shall not abuse administrative power The right to restrict or disguised restrictions on units or individuals to operate, purchase, and use the goods provided by their designated operators.
Article 33 Administrative agencies and organizations authorized by laws and regulations with the function of managing public affairs shall not abuse administrative power and carry out the following acts to hinder the free circulation of goods between regions:
(1) Set discriminatory charging items, implement discriminatory charging standards, or stipulate discriminatory prices for foreign products;
(2) Regulations for foreign products are different from similar local products technical requirements and inspection standards, or adopt discriminatory technical measures such as repeated inspections and repeated certifications for foreign goods to restrict foreign goods from entering the local market;
(3) Administrative licensing specifically targeted at foreign goods, restricting foreign goods from entering the local market; Foreign goods enter the local market;
(4) Setting up checkpoints or taking other means to hinder the entry of foreign goods or the shipment of local goods;
(5) Impeding the free movement of goods between regions Other acts of circulation.
Article 34 Administrative agencies and organizations authorized by laws and regulations to manage public affairs shall not abuse administrative power to set discriminatory qualification requirements, evaluation standards or to release information in violation of the law. and other means to exclude or restrict non-local operators from participating in local bidding activities.
Article 35 Administrative agencies and organizations authorized by laws and regulations with the function of managing public affairs shall not abuse administrative power, adopt unequal treatment with local operators, exclude or restrict foreign businesses Operators invest or set up branches locally.
Article 36 Administrative agencies and organizations authorized by laws and regulations with the function of managing public affairs shall not abuse administrative power and force operators to engage in monopoly behaviors stipulated in this law.
Article 37: Administrative agencies shall not abuse administrative power and formulate regulations that exclude or restrict competition.